JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners are aggrieved of order dated 04.04.2017 by which cognizance of the offence under section 498A IPC and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been taken in C.P. Case No. 3498 of 2015 and summons has been issued to them. 2. The petitioners have raised two fold contentions; (i) on a bare reading of the evidence produced in C.P. Case No. 3498 of 2015 no case is made out against the petitioners and (ii) the complaint case has been filed with malafide intention by the complainant. 3. Under section 200 Cr.P.C the Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence on a complaint after examining the complainant on oath and the witnesses, if any. However, if the Magistrate thinks fit under section 202 Cr.P.C he shall cause an inquiry or direct the police for investigation and after receipt of a report on such inquiry/investigation he may take cognizance of the offence under section 204 Cr. P.C or dismiss the complaint under section 203 Cr. P.C. An accused has no right to participate in the inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C and while so, the challenge by an accused to an order passed under section 204 Cr.P.C must remain confined to; (i) no material has been brought on record for issuance of summons/warrant against the proposed accused, (ii) the dispute is purely civil in nature, or (iii) it can be inferred from the materials on record that the complaint is malafide. The facts admitted by the complainant and the indisputed documents can also be looked into. No doubt, in exercise of the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C, which is the inherent power of the Court intended to doing justice to the parties, detailed discussion on the merits of the evidence in a complaint case cannot be undertaken, but the inherent improbability, which, on a plain reading of the complaint and statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation is manifest can be considered by the Court [refer,“Vadilal Panchal Vrs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonkar and another” reported in AIR 1960 SC 1113 and “Smt. Nagawwa Vrs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and others” reported in (1976) 3 SCC 736 ]. 4. In the quash-petition the petitioners have pleaded that the complainant with ulterior motive to extort money from them, a device earlier used by her against her first husband, has instituted a complaint case. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and others” reported in (1976) 3 SCC 736 ]. 4. In the quash-petition the petitioners have pleaded that the complainant with ulterior motive to extort money from them, a device earlier used by her against her first husband, has instituted a complaint case. The petitioners have relied on the evidence of the complainant in C.P. Case No. 785 of 2015 in which she has admitted that she had instituted a case against her husband under section 498A IPC and after receiving Rs. 6,00,000/-she agreed for mutual divorce. The complainant admits that her father-in-law and mother-in-law who are petitioner nos. 2 and 3 in the present proceeding are about 80 years old and she stays in a different flat. The petitioners have taken a plea that the allegation of setting the complainant on fire made in paragraph no. 14 of the present complaint is actuated with malice in law in as much as the complainant has admitted in C.P. Case No. 785 of 2015 that in that case she has not made such allegation in the complaint (paragraph no. 29). In support of the aforesaid stand, the petitioners have reproduced statement of the complainant in C.P. Case No. 785 of 2015 which have been filed under section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, wherein she has stated as under : “19. esjh igyh 'kknh Sumanto Bose tks Jamshedpur ds jgus okys Fks mlds lkFk gwbZ FkhA 20. Sumanto Bose us Divorce Suit 252/10 cruelty ds ground ij divorce ds fy, fd;k FkkA 21. eSaus vius iwoZ Husband ij U/s 498A IPC dk case Jamshedpur esa fd;k FkkA 22. eSSsuas compromise djds mutual consent ls divorce A Rs. 6 lakh eSa yh gwWus alimony esa ysdj mutual divorce fd;kA 23. buls eq>s esjk total jewellery and one flat pkfg,A 24. 1 flat and jewellery eq>s fey tk,xk rks eS lq yg djds divorce ys ywa xhA” 25. Physical torture dk dksbZ Hkh medical report/ document eSaus ugha yxk;k gSA 26. esjs present father-in-law and mother-in-law yxHkx 80 years ds gSaA 27. EkSa vius husband ls vyx Inderdeo Tower ds A bldk rent eSa ugha nsA vkSj rent flat esajgrh gwWrh gwWrk gS eSa ugha Ckrk ldrh gwW dkSu ns A 28. Physical torture dk dksbZ Hkh medical report/ document eSaus ugha yxk;k gSA 26. esjs present father-in-law and mother-in-law yxHkx 80 years ds gSaA 27. EkSa vius husband ls vyx Inderdeo Tower ds A bldk rent eSa ugha nsA vkSj rent flat esajgrh gwWrh gwWrk gS eSa ugha Ckrk ldrh gwW dkSu ns A 28. Ikapk;rh dk dksbZ dkxt ugha cuk FkkA eSaus ;g complaint petition dks i<dj signature fd;k gSaA eSaus illegal confinement ds okns esa case esa ugha fy[kk gSA f[kMdh ls [kkuk nsA us ds ckjs esa Hkh eSa ugha fy[kk gwW 29. fdjklu rs 30. ,slh ckr ugha gS fd esjs lkFk dksbZ Hkh domestic violence ugha gqvk gS vkSj eSas igys husband ds rjg blls Hkh iSlk extort djuk pkgrh gWw y ls tykus dh ckr Hkh eSaus bl case ds petition esa ugha fy[kk gSA A blfy, case dh gwW A 5. In her complaint petition, the complainant has made a specific allegation against accused no. 1, who is petitioner no. 1 herein, however, so far as accused nos. 2 and 3 who are the parents of accused no. 1 are concerned she has made absolutely vague allegations. In paragraph no. 14 she has stated that on 09.01.2015 at 10.00 P.M. in the night accused nos. 1 and 3 came at the 6th floor of Indradeo Tower Apartment and the accused no. 1 while caught hold of her accused no. 3 pour kerosene over her and when she shouted the accused no.1 asked the accused no. 3 to leave the flat. But, she has not disclosed the name of neighbours who came there. She has not stated any specific date when the accused persons have harassed or tortured her or demanded dowry from her; in paragraph no. 8 she simply says in the month of July, 2015 the accused nos. 1 to 3 again demanded a sum of Rs.3 lacs. In the entire complaint petition, the narration of the events as disclosed by her indicate that she has made specific allegations against her husband, however, so far as accused nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, I am of the opinion that the order issuing summons to them is illegal. The criminal proceeding instituted against them is an abuse of the process of law. 6. 2 and 3 are concerned, I am of the opinion that the order issuing summons to them is illegal. The criminal proceeding instituted against them is an abuse of the process of law. 6. In view of the evidence brought on record of the complaint case being C.P. Case No. 3498 of 2015 and the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 04.04.2017 against the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 is quashed. 7. In the result, Cr. M. P. No. 2486 of 2017 succeeds in part, in the aforesaid terms. 8. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the court concerned through FAX.